this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
704 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
73254 readers
4552 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Morally better? I mean, I think so - wanting to stay out of a conflict, to me, seems more morally defensible than actively supporting the bad side. It isn't the perfect moral position, but I think it is better.
More likely on a factual basis? Yes. Absolutely.
Semantics. That's what this seems to boil down to.
And, no, they did not "stay out of a conflict" by capitulating (in advance even) to Zionists' apartheid views of the world.
I mean, this is literally the basis of the trolley problem, and the divergence of several major schools of moral thought.
Umm. No. No offense, but that's patently ridiculous.
A corporation chose a distasteful policy to avoid the possibility of losing profits due to negative press. There are no lives at risk. The only risk is "brr! line must go up"
To equate such morally detestable behavior to minimizing actual suffering and loss is bizarre and nonsensical at best. At worst, it's nothing more than helping whitewash the vile and disgusting crimes of an apartheid warmongering regime.
There is no nuance here. They capitulated to genocidal bigotry to maximize profits.